Status Report: CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE SPECIALIZED AGENCIES

STATUS REPORT

CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE SPECIALIZED AGENCIES

(New York, 21/09/1947)

ENTRY INTO FORCE : 2 December 1948, in accordance with section 44 . The Convention first entered into force as regards the Netherlands by the deposit of the instrument of accession undertaking to apply the provisions of the Convention to various specialized agencies

Depositary: Secretary-General of the United Nations

Last updated by PacLII: 09-17-12

Parties	Date of Signature	Date of ratification / Other	Entry Into Force	Domestication Legislation (where available)
Fiji		21 Jun 1971 d
Tonga		17 Mar 1976 d

Albania		15 Dec 2003 a
Algeria		25 Mar 1964 a
Antigua and Barbuda		14 Dec 1988 d
Argentina		10 Oct 1963 a
Australia		9 May 1986 a
Austria		21 Jul 1950 a
Bahamas		17 Mar 1977 d
Bahrain [#]		17 Sep 1992 a
Barbados		19 Nov 1971 a
Belarus [#]		18 Mar 1966 a
Belgium		14 Mar 1962 a
Bosnia and Herzegovina		1 Sep 1993 d
Botswana		5 Apr 1983 a
Brazil		22 Mar 1963 a
Bulgaria [#]		13 Jun 1968 a
Burkina Faso		6 Apr 1962 a
Cambodia		15 Oct 1953 a
Cameroon		30 Apr 1992 a
Central African Republic		15 Oct 1962 a
Chile		21 Sep 1951 a
China [#]		11 Sep 1979 a
Croatia		12 Oct 1992 d
Cuba [#]		13 Sep 1972 a
Cyprus		6 May 1964 d
Czech Republic [#]		22 Feb 1993 d
CÃ´te d'Ivoire [#]		8 Sep 1961 a
DECLARATIONS
Democratic Republic of the Congo		8 Dec 1964 a
Denmark		25 Jan 1950 a
Dominica		24 Jun 1988 a
Ecuador		8 Jun 1951 a
Egypt		28 Sep 1954 a
Estonia		8 Oct 1997 a
Finland		31 Jul 1958 a
France [#]		2 Aug 2000 a
Gabon [#]		29 Jun 1961 a
Gambia		1 Aug 1966 d
Georgia		18 Jul 2007 a
Germany [#]		10 Oct 1957 a
Ghana		9 Sep 1958 a
Greece		21 Jun 1977 a
Guatemala		30 Jun 1951 a
Guinea		1 Jul 1959 a
Guyana		13 Sep 1973 a
Haiti		16 Apr 1952 a
Hungary [#]		2 Aug 1967 a
Iceland		17 Jan 2006 a
India		10 Feb 1949 a
Indonesia [#]		8 Mar 1972 a
Iran (Islamic Republic of)		16 May 1974 a
Iraq		9 Jul 1954 a
Ireland		10 May 1967 a
Italy [#]		30 Aug 1985 a
Jamaica		4 Nov 1963 a
Japan		18 Apr 1963 a
Jordan		12 Dec 1950 a
Kenya		1 Jul 1965 a
Kuwait		13 Nov 1961 a
Lao People's Democratic Republic		9 Aug 1960 a
Latvia		19 Dec 2005 a
Lesotho		26 Nov 1969 a
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya		30 Apr 1958 a
Lithuania [#]		10 Feb 1997 a
Luxembourg		20 Sep 1950 a
Madagascar [#]		3 Jan 1966 a
Malawi		2 Aug 1965 a
Malaysia		29 Mar 1962 d
Maldives		26 May 1969 a
Mali		24 Jun 1968 a
Malta		27 Jun 1968 d
Mauritius		18 Jul 1969 d
Mongolia [#]		3 Mar 1970 a
Montenegro		23 Oct 2006 d
Morocco		28 Apr 1958 a
Nepal		23 Feb 1954 a
Netherlands [#]		2 Dec 1948 a
New Zealand [#]		25 Nov 1960 a
Nicaragua		6 Apr 1959 a
Niger		15 May 1968 a
Nigeria		26 Jun 1961 d
Norway [#]		25 Jan 1950 a
Pakistan [#]		23 Jul 1951 a
Paraguay		13 Jan 2006 a
Philippines		20 Mar 1950 a
Poland [#]		19 Jun 1969 a
Republic of Korea		13 May 1977 a
Romania [#]		15 Sep 1970 a
Russian Federation [#]		10 Jan 1966 a
Rwanda		15 Apr 1964 a
Saint Lucia		2 Sep 1986 a
Senegal		2 Mar 1966 a
Serbia		12 Mar 2001 d
Seychelles		24 Jul 1985 a
Sierra Leone		13 Mar 1962 d
Singapore		18 Mar 1966 d
Slovakia [#]		28 May 1993 d
Slovenia		6 Jul 1992 d
South Africa [#]		30 Aug 2002 a
Spain		26 Sep 1974 a
Sweden		12 Sep 1951 a
Thailand		30 Mar 1956 a
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia		11 Mar 1996 d
Togo		15 Jul 1960 a
Trinidad and Tobago		19 Oct 1965 a
Tunisia		3 Dec 1957 a
Uganda		11 Aug 1983 a
Ukraine [#]		13 Apr 1966 a
United Arab Emirates		11 Dec 2003 a
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [#]		16 Aug 1949 a
United Republic of Tanzania		29 Oct 1962 a
Uruguay		29 Dec 1977 a
Uzbekistan		18 Feb 1997 a
Zambia		16 Jun 1975 d
Zimbabwe		5 Mar 1991 a

Keys:

Accession (a)
Acceptance (A)
Approval (AA)
Definitive Signature (s)
Formal confirmation (c)

Participation (P)
Notification (of provisional application, of special undertaking, etc) (n)
Ratification (Rt)
Reservation (r)
Succession (d)

(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made upon accession. For objections thereto, see hereinafter.)

Bahrain [up]

The accession by the State of Bahrain to the said Convention shall in no way constitute recognition of Israel or be a cause for the establishment of any relations of any kind herewith.

Belarus [up]

The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of sections 24 and 32 of the Convention, concerning the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Concerning the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic will maintain the same position as hitherto, namely, that for any dispute to be referred to the International Court of Justice for settlement, the agreement of all Parties involved in the dispute must be obtained in each individual case. This reservation similarly applies to the provision contained in section 32, stipulating that the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice shall be accepted as decisive

Bulgaria [up]

China [up]

The Government of the People's Republic of China has reservations on the provisions of section 32, article IX, of the said Convention

CÃ´te d'Ivoire [up]

29-Dec-65

It is not possible for any Government fully to comply with the requirements of section 11 of that Convention in so far as it requires the specialized agency to enjoy in the territory of a State party to the Convention treatment not less favourable than that accorded by the Government of that State to any other Government in the matter of priorities and rates on telecommunications, unless and until all other Governments collaborate in according this treatment to the agency in question. It is understood that this matter is being discussed in the International Telecommunication Union

Cuba [up]

The Revolutionary Government of Cuba does not consider itself bound by the provisions of sections 24 and 32 of the Convention, under which the International Court of Justice has compulsory jurisdiction in disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention. Concerning the competence of the International Court of Justice in such disputes, Cuba takes the position that for any dispute to be referred to the International Court of Justice for settlement, the agreement of all parties involved in the dispute must be obtained in each individual case. This reservation also applies to the provision of section 32 requiring the parties concerned to accept the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice as decisive

Czech Republic [up]

France [up]

Reservations

Only property, funds and assets belonging to agencies, administered by them and earmarked for the functions assigned to them under the agreements by which they were established, and to which France has acceded, shall enjoy the privileges and immunities provided for in the Convention

When an official of the agencies who does not have the same status as a member of the diplomatic staff under the Convention commits a traffic violation or causes a road accident, the privileges and immunities shall not apply

The provisions of section 11 concerning facilities in respect of communications shall not apply to the specialized agencies

Officials employed abroad and resident in France shall be subject to the provisions of the law applicable in France with respect to entry and stay in the national territory

The privileges and immunities, exemptions and facilities accorded to the executive head of each agency in reference to diplomatic envoys shall not be extended to any other official, except one acting on the former's behalf during his absence from duty

The privileges and immunities of experts sent on mission to the specialized agencies shall not exceed those accorded to officials of the specialized agencies

France shall not be bound by the provisions of section 32 concerning the International Court of Justice, except where a prior attempt to settle the difference amicably has failed

Interpretative declaration

In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Convention and the provisions of the individual agreements concluded between the specialized agencies and France, the provisions of these agreements shall have precedence

Gabon [up]

Germany [up]

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany takes the liberty of calling attention to the fact that the provisions of section 11 of article IV of the Convention, to the effect that the specialized agencies shall enjoy, in the territory of each State party to this Convention, for their official communications, treatment not less favourable than that accorded by the Government of such State to any other Government in the matter of priorities, rates and other taxes, cannot be fully complied with by any Government. Reference is made to the provisions of articleÂ 37 and of annex 3 of the International Telecommunication Convention concluded at Buenos Aires in 1952, as well as to the resolutions Nos. 27 and 28 appended to that Convention.

Hungary [up]

Indonesia [up]

(1) Article II (b) section 3: The capacity of the specialized agencies to acquire and dispose of immovable property shall be exercised with due regard to national laws and regulations

(2) Article IX section 32: With regard to the competence of the International Court of Justice in disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention, the Government of Indonesia reserves the right to maintain that in every individual case the agreement of the parties to the dispute is required before the Court for a ruling.

Italy [up]

Declaration

In the event that some of the specialized agencies which are mentioned in the instrument of accession and to which Italy undertakes to apply the Convention should decide to establish their headquarters or their regional offices in Italian territory, the Italian Government will be able to avail itself of the option of concluding with such agencies, in accordance with SectionÂ 39 of the Convention supplemental agreements specifying, in particular, the limits within which immunity from jurisdiction may be granted to a given agency or immunity from jurisdiction and exemption from taxation granted to officials of that agency

Lithuania [up]

... The Government of the Republic of Lithuania has made the reservation in respect of article 2 (3) (b), that the specialized agencies shall not be entitled to acquire land in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania, in view of the land regulations laid down by the Article 47 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

Madagascar [up]

The Malagasy Government will not be able to comply fully with the provisions of article IV, section 11, of the Convention, which states that the specialized agencies shall enjoy, in the territory of each State party to the Convention, for their official communications, treatment not less favourable than that accorded by the Government of such State to any other Government, in the matter of priorities, rates and taxes on telecommunications, until such time as all Governments decide to co-operate by according such treatment to the agencies in question

Mongolia [up]

New Zealand [up]

The Government of New Zealand, in common with other Governments, cannot give full effect to article IV, section 11, of the Convention, which requires that the specialized agencies shall enjoy, in the territory of each State party to the Convention, for their official communications, treatment not less favourable than the treatment accorded by the Government of such a State to any other Government in the matter of priorities, rates and taxes on telecommunications, as long as all Governments have not decided to co-operate in granting this treatment to the agencies in question

It is noted that this matter has been receiving the consideration of the United Nations and of the International Telecommunication Union. It is also noted that the final text of the annex of the Convention approved by the International Telecommunication Union, and transmitted by the Union to the Secretary- General of the United Nations in accordance with section 36 of the Convention, contains a statement that the Union would not claim for itself the enjoyment of privileged treatment with regard to the facilities in respect of communications provided in section 11 of the Convention.

Norway [up]

21-Sep-55

The Norwegian Government is of the opinion that it is impossible for any government to comply fully with Section 11 of the said Convention, which requires that the Specialized Agencies shall enjoy, in the territory of each state party to the Convention, for their official communications, treatment no less favourable than that accorded by the Government of such State to any other Government in the matter of priorities, rates and taxes on telecommunications as long as all governments have not agreed to grant to the agency in question, the treatment specified in this Section.

Pakistan [up]

Declaration contained in the notification received on 15 September 1961 and also, with the second paragraph omitted, in the notifications received on 13 March 1962 and 17 July 1962

The enjoyment by Specialized Agencies of the communication privileges provided for in Article IV, Section 11 of the Convention cannot, in practice, be determined by unilateral action of individual Governments and has in fact been determined by the International Telecommunication Convention, Atlantic City, 1947 and Telegraph and Telephone Regulations annexed thereto, Pakistan would, therefore, not be able to comply with the provisions of Article IV, Section 11 of the Convention in view of Resolution No. 28 (annexure I) passed at the Plenipotentiary Conference of the International Telecommunication Union, held in Buenos Aires in 1952

The International Telecommunication Union shall not claim for itself the communication privileges provided in Article IV, Section 11 of the Convention.

Poland [up]

Romania [up]

The Socialist Republic of Romania states that it does not consider itself bound by the provisions of sections 24 and 32, whereby the question whether an abuse of a privilege or immunity has occurred, and differences arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention and disputes between specialized agencies and Member States, shall be referred to the International Court of Justice. The position of the Socialist Republic of Romania is that such questions, differences or disputes may be referred to the International Court of Justice only with the agreement of the parties in each individual case

Russian Federation [up]

Declaration made upon accession and also contained in the notification received on 16 November 1972

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does not consider it self bound by the provisions of sections 24 and 32 of the Convention, concerning the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Concerning the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention, the USSR will maintain the same position as hitherto, namely, that for any dispute to be referred to the International Court of Justice for settlement, the agreement of all Parties involved in the dispute must be obtained in each individual case. This reservation similarly applies to the provision contained in section 32, stipulating that the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice shall be accepted as decisive

Slovakia [up]

South Africa [up]

Reservations

1. The Government of the Republic of South Africa does not consider itself bound by the provisions of Article III, Section 7 in so far as it relates to the buying, selling and holding of gold as certain limitations exist in the Republic regarding the buying, selling and holding of gold

Explanatory note: the buying, selling and holding of gold in the Republic is regulated. In terms of Exchange Control Regulation 2 no person other than an Authorized Dealer may buy or borrow any gold from, or sell, to any person not being an Authorized Dealer, unless exemption from Exchange Control Regulation 5 has been authorized (Mining Houses and Mining Producers may elect to sell their total gold holdings to the approved counter parties, including foreign counter parties, provided that the Exchange Control Department of the South African Reserve Bank has given the necessary exemption from the aforementioned regulation)

2. Pending a decision by the Government of the Republic of South Africa on the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the Government of the Republic does not consider itself bound by the terms of Article IX, Section 32 of the Convention which provides for the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in differences arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention. The Republic will adhere to the position that, for the submission of a particular dispute for settlement by the International Court, the consent of all the parties to the dispute is required in every individual case. This reservation is equally applicable to the provisions contained in the said section, which stipulate that the advisory opinion of the International Court is to be accepted as decisive.

Ukraine [up]

The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic does not consider itself bound by the provisions of sections 24 and 32 of the Convention, concerning the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Concerning the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic will maintain the same position as hitherto, namely, that for any dispute to be referred to the International Court of Justice for settlement, the agreement of all Parties involved in the dispute must be obtained in each individual case. This reservation similarly applies to the provision contained in section 32, stipulating that the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice shall be accepted as decisive

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [up]

It is not possible for any Government fully to comply with the requirements of Section 11 of that Convention in so far as it requires the Specialized Agency to enjoy in the territory of a state party to the Convention treatment not less favourable than that accorded by the Government of that state to any other Government in the matter of priorities and rates on telecommunications, unless and until all other Governments collaborate in according this treatment to the Agency in question. It is understood that this matter is being discussed in the International Telecommunication Union.

18-Dec-58

With regard to the Universal Postal Union and the World Meteorological Organization, ... no Government can fully comply with Section 11 of this Convention which requires that the specialized agencies shall enjoy, in the territory of each State party to the Convention, for their official communications, treatment not less favourable than that accorded by the Government of such a State to any other Government in the matter of priorities, rates and taxes on telecommunications so long as all the other Governments have not decided to co-operate in granting this treatment to the agencies in question. This matter is under consideration by the United Nations and the International Telecommunication Union

The final text of the annex to the Convention approved by the International Telecommunication Union and transmitted by the Union to the Secretary-General of the United Nations in accordance with Section 36 of the Convention contains a statement that the Union would not claim for itself the enjoyment of privileged treatment with regard to the facilities in respect of communications provided in Section 11 of the Convention.

05-Nov-63

Her Majesty's Government observe [in connection with its notification of application to the International Maritime Organisation] that it would be impracticable for any Government fully to comply with Section 11 of the Convention which requires that the Specialized Agencies shall enjoy, in the territory of each State party to the Convention, for their official communications, treatment not less favourable than that accorded by the Government of such State to any other Government in the matter of priorities, rates and taxes on telecommunications, until such time as all the other Governments have decided to co-operate in granting this treatment to the agencies in question. This matter is under consideration by the United Nations and the International Telecommunication Union.

Objections

(Unless otherwise indicated, the objections were made upon accession or succession.)

Netherlands [up]

12-Jan-84

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands has noted the reservation made on the accession of China to the Convention on the privileges and immunities of the specialized agencies, and is of the opinion that the reservation mentioned, and similar reservations other States have made in the past or may make in the future, are incompatible with the objectives and purposes of the Convention

The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does, however, not wish to raise a formal objection to these reservations made by States parties to the Convention.

NOTES

1. Resolution 179 (II); Official Records of the Second Session of the General Assembly, Resolutions (A/519), p. 112

2. IRO was dissolved by Resolution No. 108, adopted by the General Council of the IRO at its 101st meeting on 15 February 1952

3. The former Yugoslavia had acceeded to the Convention on 23Â November 1951. See also note 1 under "Bosnia and Herzegovina", "Croatia", "former Yugoslavia", "Slovenia", "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" and "Yugoslavia" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume

4. See note 2 under "China" and note 2 under "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" regarding Hong Kong in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume

5. Czechoslovakia had acceded to the Convention on 29 December 1966 in respect of the following agencies: ILO, ICAO, UNESCO, WHO, UPU, ITU, WMO and IMO. Subsequently, on 6 September 1988 and 26 April 1991, the Government of Czechoslovakia notified the Secretary-General that it applied the Convention in respect of FAO (second revised text of annex II), WIPO, and UNIDO, and IMF, IBRD, IFC and IDA, respectively. The instrument of accession also contained a reservation, subsequently withdrawn on 26 April 1991. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 586, p. 247. See also note in this chapter and note 1 under "Czech Republic" and note 1 under "Slovakia" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume

6. In a communication received by the Secretary-General on 10 October 1957, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany declared that the Convention will also apply to the Saar Territory except that Section 7 (b) of the Convention shall not take effect with regard to the Saar Territory until the expiration of the interim period defined in article 3 of the Treaty of 27 October 1956 between France and the Federal Republic of Germany

7. The German Democratic Republic had acceded to the Convention, with a reservation, on 4 October 1974 in respect of the following specialized agencies: ILO, UNESCO, WHO (third revised text of annex VII), UPU, ITU, WMO, IMO (revised text of annex XII). For the text of the reservation see United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 950, p. 357. See also note in this chapter and note 2 under "Germany" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume

8. See note 1under "Germany" regarding BerlinÂ (West) in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume

9. See note 1 under "Montenegro" in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume

10. The instrument of accession by the Government of Nepal was deposited with the Director-General of the World Health Organization, in accordance with section 42 of the Convention

11. See note 1 under "New Zealand" " regarding Tokelau in the "Historical Information" section in the front matter of this volume

12. The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland notified the Secretary-General, on the dates indicated, that it is unable to accept certain reservations made by the States listed below because in its view they are not of the kind which intending parties to the Convention have the right to make

Date of receipt of the objection

20 Jun 1967

11 Jan 1968

12 Aug 1968

2 Dec 1969

17 Aug 1970

30 Nov 1970

21 Sep 1972

1 Nov 1972

20 Nov 1974

6 Nov 1979

21 Apr 1983

* See also note in this chapter

** See also note in this chapter

*** See also note in this chapter

**** See also note in this chapter

13. On 24 June 1992, the Government of Bulgaria notified the Secretary-General its decision to withdraw the reservation made upon accession. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 638, p. 266

14. In a communication received on 8 December 1989, the Government of Hungary notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw the reservations in respect of sections 24 and 32 of the Convention made upon accession. For the text of the reservations, see United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 602, p. 300

15. In a communication received on 10 January 1973, the Government of Indonesia informed the Secretary-General, in reference to the reservation [concerning the capacity to acquire and dispose of immovable property] that it would grant to the Specialized Agencies the same privileges and immunities which it had granted to the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development

16. By 4 December 1998, the date on which the period specified for the notification of objections by the Specialized Agencies concerned to the reservation made by Lithuania upon accession expired, no objection had been notified to the Secretary-General. Consequently, the instrument of accession by the Government of Lithuania, including the reservation, was deposited with the Secretary General on 10 February 1997

17. Subsequently, in a communication received on 19 July 1990, the Government of Mongolia notified the Secretary-General of its decision to withdraw the reservation made upon accession. For the text of the reservation, see United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 719, p. 274

18. On 16 October 1997, the Government of Poland notified the Secretary-General that it had decided to withdraw its reservation with regard to sections 24 and 32 of the Convention made upon accession. For the text of the reservation see United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 677, p. 430

19. In a communication received by the Secretary-General on 28 January 1980, the Government of the Netherlands indicated that the statement concerning their wish not to raise a formal objection to these reservations

... is intended to mean that the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands does not oppose the entry into force of the Convention between itself and the reserving states.

PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback| Report an error
URL: http://www.paclii.org/pits/en/status_pages/1947-5.html

Pacific Islands Treaty Series

STATUS REPORT

CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE SPECIALIZED AGENCIES